Part of the problem may be a misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. The message of the Bible is inspired, not every single word. The Bible was inspired by a perfect God and written by imperfect men. That is why we need to compare different parts of the Bible with each other in order to understand the message. When we fail to do that, we find the Bible is filled with contradictions, something its critics use to discredit it.

What the passage says is that King Saul understood, or believed, the spirit to be Samuel. After stating that, the author goes on to call the spirit Samuel. Simply because the author calls the spirit Samuel after indicating that King Saul believed it to be Samuel is not conclusive evidence that it was indeed Samuel.

The witch of Endor practiced necromancy which today is known as black magic and is considered by all mainstream Christian denominations as demonic. So unless we want to claim that all of Christiandom doesn't understand the Bible on this point, we need to concede that the witch of Endor was demonic. That said, there are a few Christian scholars that believe God used the demonic witch of Endor to send back Samuel and talk to King Saul. Which is where I point out the conflict. If the story is literal, it means a demonic witch was able to call back a prophet of God or (if one wants to reverse it) God used a demonic witch to send back Samuel. Both scenarios are problematic and neither is accepted by any mainstream Christian denominations that I am aware of.

One cannot lightly gloss over the fact that the spirit failed to call King Saul to repentance. God called wicked King Ahab, wicked King Nebuchadnezzar and the wicked king of Nineveh to repentance and Samuel, when he was alive, directed King Saul to repentance. Scripture clearly teaches that God is not willing that any be lost.

If we read the passage as the spirit being a demon that Saul identified as Samuel, it is consistent with the rest of Scripture. If we take the word-for-word literal interpretation we will find this is only one of several passages in the Bible that contradicts other passages in the Bible. Did both thieves ridicule Christ or just one? The Bible contradicts itself on that point if we take the word-for-word literal interpretation. One gospel say both thieves railed on Christ and another Gospel says only one did. An entire book could be written on such apparent contradictions. If one is really on a quest for truth, they have to be open to it when it is presented to them.

I agree with your post and think you've done an excellent job summarizing the question of whether the spirit raised was actually Samuel or not.

I just wanted to add something as regards the two thieves. According to Matthew, both thieves railed at Jesus, but according to Luke, one of the thieves did so. It could very well be that both thieves at first railed at Jesus but that one of them had a change of attitude as the Holy Spirit brought conviction to his heart and as he heard Jesus' words and observed His behavior.

Hi Peg.

Ecclesiastes 9:5. "The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing."


oG

It's well-known that the ancient Hebrews did not believe like the ancient Greeks in an immortal spirit or soul. The Greeks adopted the idea from the Babylonians and the Babylonians adopted it from the Egyptians. The Romans, of course, adopted it from the Greeks, as they also adopted the Greek myths and gave them Roman names. During the time between the Old and New Testaments, about 300 BC, the Jewish nation and people came under the influence of the Greeks and then the Romans, and it was at this time that Jewish writings began to refer to the immortality of the soul and prayers for the dead. None of this is found in the Hebrew canon. The influence of Greek philosophy on the Christian view of the soul is mentioned in the book, What Is Man? by the highly respected modern theologian and philosopher, Rudolf Pannenberg.

Writing about the year 400 BC, "the father of history," Herodotus, said, "The Egyptians were also the first to claim that the soul of a human being is immortal, and that each time the body dies the soul enters another creature just as it is being born" (The Histories, Book II, par. 123).

The Greeks weren't at all concerned with the resurrection of the body when Paul preached it to them in Athens (Acts 17: 32). In fact, the record says that they ridiculed Paul about this point. Why? Because they didn't consider the physical body as important, since they believed the soul was immortal. Of what importance, they reasoned, could the resurrection of the body be, if the soul or spirit of the dead is still alive?

Yet the apostle Paul thought and spoke quite differently. For him the resurrection was absolutely essential. Apparently the dead are not already alive and conscious in heaven or anywhere else for that matter. In 1 Corinthians 15: 18, Paul wrote that if the dead are not resurrected, then "those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished." In other words, the only way the dead have any chance of being with God is if they are bodily resurrected. Certainly Paul would not have written this if the dead continue to exist on another level or in another place. Paul clearly says that if the Christian dead are not resurrected, they "are destroyed," "utterly lost," perished," etc.

Also, when Paul was comforting the Thessalonians regarding their beloved dead, he did not tell them that they would see their loved ones when they died, but rather he instructed them they would again see their loved ones after the resurrection of the righteous which occurs at the return of Jesus Christ. Thus, it is the Second Coming and the resurrection, not death, that is "the blessed hope" of the Christian believer.

These points, among the many others in Scripture, I find to be very strong evidences that the dead are unconscious in their graves waiting for the resurrection.

That is the logical understanding of the two passages but not possible if each individual word penned by the authors of the gospels was chosen by God Himself.

An interesting side note is the repentant thief had to have a knowledge of righteousness by faith as he asked Christ to remember him after admitting he deserved to be there. He was obviously not relying on his own works for eternal security.

I tend to agree with you there. Of course, I don't believe every single word was inspired as in dictation. I believe that the Bible writers were God's penmen, not his pen. God revealed things through dreams and visions and then the Holy Spirit helped the writers find the words to express what they learned or saw or heard.



Excellent point. None of us can rely on our works to gain eternal life. The Bible does call us to show ourselves worthy of entering God's kingdom, but only in the sense in which our lives demonstrate that our trust in God is genuine. It is not meant to signify that it's possible to earn justification or salvation. That's an utter impossibility.

To start off, I would like to point out something that you guys told me shortly after starting this thread: One passage should not be taken out of context and drawn upon for meaning.



You have to at least agree that the text does not indicate that the spirit was a demon posing as Samuel. You have to agree that there is practically nothing, no evidence, to suggest that this was the case. You must at least agree that almost your entire argument hinges on whether one word, "perceived,"(also stated as "understood," "recognized" in other versions) is meant in a literal sense or figuratively. You have to agree that you could be wrong in your stance, right?

All I'm saying is that the evidence, by a landslide, points more closely to literalism than metaphor, so why does it make more sense to take the latter stance? Why, Friend? As a further stipulation, try throwing the words Perceive(d), Understood/Understand, and Recognize(d) into a Bible search engine and you'll see that they are used quite literally.

Exactly! Thank you, Shane. The realm of the dead is consistently referenced in several parts of the OT. However, demons in the Roman/European/Medieval sense are never mentioned. Sorcerers, spirit speakers, wizards, etc are also consistently referenced in the OT.

Shane, please be honest with your claims. Even within the context of the current story, Saul was being punished for not completely wiping Amalek (men, women, children, beasts, cattle, etc...) from the face of the Earth--a direct commandment from God. Your posts keep indicating that you don't believe that God kills people. This is not true, as there are many instances when he does.

I disagree. It is more consistent to me that the spirit was that of Samuel. Again, specifically, what is your reasoning behind your stance?

Nice one, olgs. That is one passage to ponder about in this study.

John, first of all, let me thank you for taking an interest in this thread.

Since you are referencing external dating of the Bible, I'll also do the same. Samuel's books are believed to have been written by Samuel himself and by people in the same era. Since Samuel is believed to have lived in, roughly, the 800s BC, and Sheol is referenced in his books and those before them, I have to disagree with your statement that the ancient Hebrews did not believe in an immortal soul.
Just a quick, blind search:

Genesis 37:35 And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him.

Numbers 16:30 But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD.
Numbers 16:33 They went down alive into the grave, with everything they owned; the earth closed over them, and they perished and were gone from the community.
Curiously, these seem to indicate that one can go down there alive, as in their physical form, and also that it's a place within the Earth... Weird...

1 Samuel 2:6 The LORD brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up.


The New Testament Gospels are also interesting regarding the afterlife, such as the story of Paul that you mention, but, if possible, I would like us to stick to pre-Roman/pre-European texts until we cover enough ground to move past them.

Is it safe to assume we are not dealing with someone with honest questions on a legitimate spiritual quest but rather someone that believes they have discovered their own version of truth and seeks to criticize those that disagree with it?



Using the Sola Scriptuta rule for studying the Bible, I see no place where dead people are referred to as "spirits". So any spirit involved would be either a demon or an unfallen angel.

If we are going to take the passage literally it would mean that Samuel became a god after he died. When Saul asked the witch what she saw she said, "I saw gods ascending out of the earth."



Not at all. My position is based on taking the entire Bible as a whole and not isolated small portions alone. A literal word-by-word interpretation would mean that witches have power to bring back prophets. It would mean God hates some and loves others. It would mean Samuel became a god after his death. It would mean both Saul and Samuel went to the same place. I guess that means Saul would have become a god too. I see much more problems with the literal word-by-word interpretation than I see with the Sola Scriptura interpretation.



From my understanding, God wanted Saul to repent of his sin. God is not willing that any perish and has no joy in the death of the wicked. Look at the sins of Nebuchadnezzar and he will be in the Kingdom!

QR frame:
Post to Post:

>>Is it safe to assume we are not dealing with someone with honest questions on a legitimate spiritual quest but rather someone that believes they have discovered their own version of truth and seeks to criticize those that disagree with it?<<

Yikes! low blow! Have I missed the ‘criticism’ referred-to in the above quote?

>>Shane, please be honest with your claims.<<

Oh, okay...

Don’t take this as criticism, but isn’t the lead quote in this post kinda like – shootin’ from the hip? Usually,

that kind of shootin’ misses the mark.

I’ve submitted, immediately below, something from “the law”.

Ps 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.

St John quotes Jesus Christ...:

Jn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Jn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

The Psalms and the book of St John are the only two passages where it is found that you and I – unto whom the word of God came – are truly gods. It is unnecessary to seek beyond these two. Imagine,

just two mentions among the 800,000 words that comprise Holy Writ – and we have

Light, Knowledge, Doctrine!

The question obtains: What does the truly honest quester do with straightforward, transparent Writ? does s/he reject Jesus Christ’s own words? or does s/he incorporate them into a comprehensive hermeneutic?

Re-read the thread if needed.



This characterization of Adventists started the thread. The insinuation is that Adventists twist and manipulate the passage to fit their doctrine - an obvious criticism. Adventists, like so many other mainstream Protestant denominations, get their interpretation from the Sola Scriptura principle. One only need to google some of the main words in the passage to find that Adventists are not alone in believing the spirit King Saul spoke with was demonic. Such a belief is reasonable, consistent with Sola Scriptura and less problematic than interpreting the passage as if God wrote it with His own finger.